If you like, google Andrew Sullivan for a lib blog account of the debate.

Bottom line for me: Libs now are way further to the left than back when I was born. JFK's don't overtax/people need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps when possible/ strong defense as the deterrence for war? I'm on board. But today, libs frame that as extreme right. I wonder when they will stop moving to the left- where are the limits?

The left promotes some good concepts, but right now, we need to guard against being in so much debt that we eventually end up printing so much money that inflation starts ramping up. Greece could happen anywhere- having so much debt that drastic austerity measures must be enforced in order to recover. People who were promised stuff, and can't get it- and people who had govt jobs and have lost them- are furious. And if we (our kids) get in that situation, there won't be a Germany there, ready to bail us out.

There are plenty of people in the center. They're just not allowed to represent any party as candidates and are labeled as 'weak'. You have some viewpoints that are conservative in nature and I have viewpoints that are liberal in nature. Yet we're forced to vote one way or the other for candidates who represent polarity on each side.

It's useless.

Bu there will be yelling and arguing and nothing will change, other than for the worse. Not sure how you can look back over the last 30 years or so and not come to that conclusion.

Question I have is a general one: if people watched the debate and processed what they saw, why do they need to visit various media outlets to read other opinions (which can be affected by bias)?

In theory, if you're of voting age and have access to the debate, why is it necessary to look elsewhere for thoughts and opinions on who won, who lost, what went down, etc?

If you didn't see it and you get opinion, isn't there chance you're affected based on your biases and those of the media outlet?

Not a shot at you for the link, but I can't help but wonder why informed people need to rely on other outlets after watching what went down. Kind of like why I don't read Game recaps or stories after seeing the game. I already saw what happened and have formed an opinion based on what went down.

Question I have is a general one: if people watched the debate and processed what they saw, why do they need to visit various media outlets to read other opinions (which can be affected by bias)?

In theory, if you're of voting age and have access to the debate, why is it necessary to look elsewhere for thoughts and opinions on who won, who lost, what went down, etc?

If you didn't see it and you get opinion, isn't there chance you're affected based on your biases and those of the media outlet?

Not a shot at you for the link, but I can't help but wonder why informed people need to rely on other outlets after watching what went down. Kind of like why I don't read Game recaps or stories after seeing the game. I already saw what happened and have formed an opinion based on what went down.

The same reason I read Dan, Dave, and Jesse's articles on the Buckeye game I just watched. I don't know everything and I don't see everything.

Looking elsewhere for consenting or dissenting opinions is human nature. It makes us more informed.

Question I have is a general one: if people watched the debate and processed what they saw, why do they need to visit various media outlets to read other opinions (which can be affected by bias)?

In theory, if you're of voting age and have access to the debate, why is it necessary to look elsewhere for thoughts and opinions on who won, who lost, what went down, etc?

If you didn't see it and you get opinion, isn't there chance you're affected based on your biases and those of the media outlet?

Not a shot at you for the link, but I can't help but wonder why informed people need to rely on other outlets after watching what went down. Kind of like why I don't read Game recaps or stories after seeing the game. I already saw what happened and have formed an opinion based on what went down.

The same reason I read Dan, Dave, and Jesse's articles on the Buckeye game I just watched. I don't know everything and I don't see everything.

Looking elsewhere for consenting or dissenting opinions is human nature. It makes us more informed.

I fear it makes the 10% of people who take into account ALL the information more informed and the other 90% who already have their minds made up just find justification for whatever viewpoint they already have.

What happened, happened, right? If you read articles about what happened in Buckeye game against Iowa by Dan, Jesse and David and then read the Iowa writers articles and mix in the national experts' opinion then you'll be more informed and more rounded.

If you read only Bucknuts account then you're more likely to get a viewpoint that more closely matches your affiliation. Most people aren't looking for information. They're looking for justification of their already formed thoughts and opinions.

YMMV of course. I fear there are far too few educated people willing to vote for whomever may be best for this particular time and far too many with minds made up and seeking opinions that validate their pre-conceived notions and biases.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Looking elsewhere for consenting or dissenting opinions is human nature. It makes us more informed.

For me to want to legitimately listen to anyone's opinion, on any topic, I highly prefer to be able to trust that they can portray the dissenting opinion.

The disingenuous arguements of pundits and candidates (and attorneys) who know why their statement is a lie, or is maybe not as desirable to others, is the thing that makes me sick. Not so much the thinking that there's no difference between the choices.

Interesting poll analysis- the good thing about any contest (sports or politics) is it gets tested for validity.

Question I have is a general one: if people watched the debate and processed what they saw, why do they need to visit various media outlets to read other opinions (which can be affected by bias)?

In theory, if you're of voting age and have access to the debate, why is it necessary to look elsewhere for thoughts and opinions on who won, who lost, what went down, etc?

If you didn't see it and you get opinion, isn't there chance you're affected based on your biases and those of the media outlet?

Not a shot at you for the link, but I can't help but wonder why informed people need to rely on other outlets after watching what went down. Kind of like why I don't read Game recaps or stories after seeing the game. I already saw what happened and have formed an opinion based on what went down.

The same reason I read Dan, Dave, and Jesse's articles on the Buckeye game I just watched. I don't know everything and I don't see everything.

Looking elsewhere for consenting or dissenting opinions is human nature. It makes us more informed.

I fear it makes the 10% of people who take into account ALL the information more informed and the other 90% who already have their minds made up just find justification for whatever viewpoint they already have.

What happened, happened, right? If you read articles about what happened in Buckeye game against Iowa by Dan, Jesse and David and then read the Iowa writers articles and mix in the national experts' opinion then you'll be more informed and more rounded.

If you read only Bucknuts account then you're more likely to get a viewpoint that more closely matches your affiliation. Most people aren't looking for information. They're looking for justification of their already formed thoughts and opinions.

YMMV of course. I fear there are far too few educated people willing to vote for whomever may be best for this particular time and far too many with minds made up and seeking opinions that validate their pre-conceived notions and biases.

I'm pretty much a Socialist. So just about every mainstream opinion I disagree with. I don't have a dog in this fight, which is why i'm sitting this election out. Neither person interests me as POTUS. I've seen Obama and i'm not impressed, I have NO desire to see Mitt Romney hold any office higher than city dog catcher....

peeker643 wrote:Question I have is a general one: if people watched the debate and processed what they saw, why do they need to visit various media outlets to read other opinions (which can be affected by bias)?

I must say- this describes why I have no interest in watching that NFL Network special on the 1995 Browns.

peeker643 wrote:Question I have is a general one: if people watched the debate and processed what they saw, why do they need to visit various media outlets to read other opinions (which can be affected by bias)?

I must say- this describes why I have no interest in watching that NFL Network special on the 1995 Browns.

I didn't watch it. Been there, done that, felt that, processed that, done with that. I remember it and always will, but don't need it again.

googleeph2 wrote:Bottom line for me: Libs now are way further to the left than back when I was born. JFK's don't overtax/people need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps when possible/ strong defense as the deterrence for war? I'm on board. But today, libs frame that as extreme right. I wonder when they will stop moving to the left- where are the limits?

The top marginal tax rate was 91 percent, which JFK wanted reduced to a "more sensible" 65 percent. Compare that with today's 35 percent top rate, and ask: If supply-siders are so enamored of JFK's tax policies, would they advocate a return to a "more sensible" 65 percent top rate? Applying Kennedy's tax talk to the current structure, JFK biographer Robert Dallek says, is like comparing "apples and watermelons."

peeker643 wrote:I wish sporting events were like debates. When the Browns got thumped 35-6 we could see it spun over the course of the next days into an actual Cleveland win.

I mean, y'all watched the same exact event/debate/telecast, correct? One wasn't on RepubTV and the other on DemTV and enhanced to change the actual coverage? It was the exact same thing yet there are declarations of a huge win and others "LOL-ing" at the notion.

I didn't watch. Not bothering. Not even sure I'll vote. I can't make up my mind between which man and party are Christ-like and which are the dumbest motherfuckers on the planet.

This is why it's desperately frustrating in this country today. Not only politics but talking about them.

Scream louder!!! Make shit up!!! I'm sure it will change the minds of the folks on the other side of the aisle.

Question I have is a general one: if people watched the debate and processed what they saw, why do they need to visit various media outlets to read other opinions (which can be affected by bias)?

Kind of like why I don't read Game recaps or stories after seeing the game. I already saw what happened and have formed an opinion based on what went down.

Its just a well reinforced habit.

Most people have been taught since early childhood to distrust their own opinions, desires and decisions and to always verify a thought with others, especially authority figures, and adjust their thinking as necessary.

Its gross. We're trained from the beginning to be modern day peasants.

Romney won, period. His platform hasn't changed, it’s always been RINO. He specifically, during the entire campaign and last night, distanced himself from the Orthodox positions of the Tea Party and Uber Conservatives. Look how many of us were disappointed in Mittens selection. What he did last night was speak to the point in a business-like manner. He had confidence and body language of someone who knew what he was talking about. Obama had class warfare and anecdotes that didn't always fit the question being asked. He was stammering, looking down, and looked annoyed to even be there; in the same fashion W was for his first debate with Kerry.

Mitt laid out concepts and admitted that promising details before legislative work would be foolish. It is up to the electorate to accept that or not. Considering how many complain about politicians and their promises it seems a reasonable position, and Mitt actually has a documented history he can point back to.

I'm biased, but I though Mitt laid out the conceptual framework that the American people understand. I still say Mitt wins this...

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Also the 1950 rates are a non-starter. Care to discuss how many people paid them or how many loopholes and compensation methods skirted the rates? As if some guy would actually give 91 cents of every dollar to Uncle Sam. Just think about that rationally.

I'm not gonna provide the links, but subsequent periods with lower rates also generated more receipts. Oh, and growth for the 1950's was lower than the historical average (1951-1960). Oh, and JFK ran on a platform of, "getting us moving again." Oh, and he lowered those rates as Pres.

Last thing, but I LMFAO at this 14% bs. Why not discuss the EFFECTIVE rates paid by those whom the Obama campaign compares Romeny to?

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

As a Republican who is not a big Romney supporter and doesn't think he has much of a shot in the general election, I liked a lot of what he said last night and was temporarily re-energized by his performance. He pandered to the base, discussing a lot of states' rights issues, which I'm a big supporter of. He talked at length about shrinking the size of the federal government and looked vastly more prepared than Obama.

That said, Obama took this entire thing for granted. He knows he has a huge lead, and short of being caught raping a staffer or disposing a body, he has this thing sewn up. He'll show up for the next debate far more prepared and confident and unless Romney wins the next couple debates in a landslide, like he did last night's, it won't make a bit of difference. Might have just been a wake-up call for Barry.

Most of the people watching who felt Romney won so big are already decided voters. People who are liberals who feel Obama lost still aren't voting for Romney.

Paul Ryan will systematically pick Joe Biden apart in their debate. Romney might still have better debate showings than Obama. And on November 6, it still won't matter.

A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe

Most people have been taught since early childhood to distrust their own opinions, desires and decisions and to always verify a thought with others, especially authority figures, and adjust their thinking as necessary.

Its gross. We're trained from the beginning to be modern day peasants.

skatingtripods wrote:Most of the people watching who felt Romney won so big are already decided voters. People who are liberals who feel Obama lost still aren't voting for Romney.

Don't forget the mass of people that are neither "liberal" nor "conservative", neither Democrat nor Republican, who have already made up their mind for various reasons and could care less who "won" some debate.

There's really a small percentage of people that are truly undecided at this point, so I guess that who "wins" a debate means something to them. For the vast chunk of the populace, the debate is just a reason to argue with the other "side".

skatingtripods wrote:As a Republican who is not a big Romney supporter and doesn't think he has much of a shot in the general election, I liked a lot of what he said last night and was temporarily re-energized by his performance. He pandered to the base, discussing a lot of states' rights issues, which I'm a big supporter of. He talked at length about shrinking the size of the federal government and looked vastly more prepared than Obama.

That said, Obama took this entire thing for granted. He knows he has a huge lead, and short of being caught raping a staffer or disposing a body, he has this thing sewn up. He'll show up for the next debate far more prepared and confident and unless Romney wins the next couple debates in a landslide, like he did last night's, it won't make a bit of difference. Might have just been a wake-up call for Barry.

Most of the people watching who felt Romney won so big are already decided voters. People who are liberals who feel Obama lost still aren't voting for Romney.

Paul Ryan will systematically pick Joe Biden apart in their debate. Romney might still have better debate showings than Obama. And on November 6, it still won't matter.

That annoying pollster Luntz had a group of undecided voters, a good chunk who voted for Obama in 2008, as a focus group and they were huge for Romney. Anecdotal and whether that has staying power is in question. Just kinda disagree with this cementing decided people, and not having any "sway" effect.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

I think Biden learned from his debate with Palin. I expect a much better performance out of him.

Ryan gets flustered in interviews on Fox News, he might melt down in a debate.

This is all based on the assumption (maybe stupidly) that Biden doesn't gaffe like he's known for.

Agree. For all the stuff said about Romney being robotic he came off as genuine last night. IMO, Ryan can be far too "talking point" and robotic (though I still like him). I cannot see how either Romney or Ryan can be comfortable, they need to keep the pressure on...

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Most people have been taught since early childhood to distrust their own opinions, desires and decisions and to always verify a thought with others, especially authority figures, and adjust their thinking as necessary.

Its gross. We're trained from the beginning to be modern day peasants.

THE MOTHERFUCKING NUMBERS SHOW THAT FOR THIS DEBATE (NOT ANYWHERE NEAR THE BIGGEST WIN IN 20 YEAR SINCE KING BILL CLINTON EXISTS) TO MATTER IT WOULD BE A HUGE OUTLIER READ PEOPLE:

The Predictive Value of Instant-Reaction Polls

In a way, however, it’s good news for Mr. Romney if his team needs to worry about the Electoral College. Why? Because this stuff only matters if the vote is very close; mathematically, it is extremely unlikely for a candidate to lose the Electoral College if he wins the national popular vote by more than about two percentage points.

Ohio is not a great problem for Mr. Romney to have — but it is a better one than being in a losing position all over the map. After the debate on Wednesday night in Denver, the chances are better that Mr. Romney will narrow his deficit in the national polls — and Mr. Obama will need his electoral firewall.

A bit of caution, however, about the predictive power of those polls showing Mr. Romney having clearly won the debate on Wednesday. As I mentioned after the debate, I had not come across a study on the relationship between instant-reaction debate polls and the eventual effect on the horse race polls. So I decided to do a quick one myself.

The chart below reflects the candidates that debate watchers deemed to be the winners or losers in CNN polls in 17 presidential debates between 1984 and 2008. I compare this figure with the change in national head-to-head polls before and after the debate.

(Estimates for the horse race change after the first debate in each cycle, and all debates in 1984, come from my own database; those for the rest of the debates are from Thomas Holbrook).

The estimates are framed from the perspective of the incumbent party candidate, who is designated with the letter ‘I’ and the color purple in the chart; the challenger is designated with ‘C’ and the color orange.

The clearest win for any candidate in the CNN poll came in 1992, when Bill Clinton was deemed the winner of the second presidential debate by 58 percent of respondents, as compared with 16 percent for President George H.W. Bush and 15 percent for H. Ross Perot. That town-hall-style debate, in Richmond, Va., included this famous moment in which Mr. Clinton displayed his capacity to empathize with voters:

Indeed, Mr. Clinton increased his margin over Mr. Bush by about four percentage points in head-to-head polls immediately after that debate. Although Mr. Clinton lost some of that advantage during the remainder of the campaign, this is still a favorable precedent for Mr. Romney, since his 38-point margin of victory in CNN’s poll on Wednesday night is similar to Mr. Clinton’s 42-point win in that 1992 debate.

In several other cases, however, the instant-reaction polls did not correlate with the change in head-to-head polls. Before Wednesday night, the second-clearest margin of victory for a challenging candidate in the CNN poll came in 2008, when Mr. Obama was declared the winner of the third presidential debate by a 27-point margin. However, his opponent John McCain actually gained slightly in the polls instead just after that debate.

In 2000, CNN instant polls deemed Al Gore the winner of both the first and third presidential debates. But he lost about three points to George W. Bush in head-to-head polls after each of them. In 1996, Mr. Clinton was declared the winner of the first presidential debate in the CNN poll, but Bob Dole gained slightly in the head-to-head polls after that.

Over all, the relationship between the winner of the instant-reaction poll and the change in head-to-head polls is positive, although not statistically significant.

But for what it’s worth, the historical data would project a gain of 2.2 percentage points for Mr. Romney in the head-to-head polls by this time next week.

I don't understand how you guys don't understand this analysis. As our political figures descend into the abyss of retarded our models and math skills continue to improve.

Also in this/the-above piece is a big blow-job to the importance of Ohio and how bad of shape Mitt really is in there....

The CNN poll today had 67% saying Romney won, to 25% for Obama. CNN. Those are astronomical numbers. And unless I am missing something, that makes it one of the biggest debate slaughters in history, Clinton included. Before one of the biggest audience ever. Anyone that doesn't think that is going to have impact is a fucking moron. No matter how cool their blog is.

Romney will pick up 3-4 points nationally. Maybe more than that in some of the key battlegrounds.

We'll know soon enough.

"It's like dating a woman who hates you so much she will never break up with you, even if you burn down the house every single autumn." ~ Chuck Klosterman on Browns fans relationship with the Browns

I'm still not even sure what your argument is here. Your boi states that Bubba Clinton got a 4 point bounce after his 92 debate performance, one in which just 58% of the people in the CNN poll said he won. Compared with the 67% that thought Romney win last night. And says it is a favorable precedent for Romney. He then goes on to say that in debates that were closer, the winner didn't get the bounce they should have. Which makes sense.

This was a one sided slaughter last night. Romney made Obama look exactly like what he is: a know nothing, hack career politician that has never actually ran anything or accomplished anything in his life. Obama came in predictably smug, overconfident, and underprepared ... and he was ran over by a guy that has actual ideas about how to create jobs and fix the economy ... not just talking points about evil oil companies, green energy, and plans to create a million manufacturing jobs.

Outlier wouldn't be a strong enough word. The President was thoroughly embarrassed and exposed as what he is last night. And 60 million people were watching.

"It's like dating a woman who hates you so much she will never break up with you, even if you burn down the house every single autumn." ~ Chuck Klosterman on Browns fans relationship with the Browns

As much as I agree with Rich in that this will probably impact things somewhat significantly (even if short term). Neither candidate's overall message changed from the previous 48 hrs before the debate. Romney still needs to fill in some blanks, and Obama will be told to bring those blanks up right off the bat next debate.

I'm curious as to the accurate number of undecideds (probably impossible to know within 30% accuracy) b/c those voters are the ones to be most influenced by the debates, especially a butt whooping one early in the month. If undecideds are a large number, this will be interesting at come voting time.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

You do understand that you have to subtract the number that thought Bush won from the number that though Clinton won and it is the same with Mitt?

Clinton's win is a statistical outlier and if that is repeated it will be the second example of a bounce like that EVER happening. It could happen (I also could piss gold streams tonight), but in the real world (you work with money and numbers) pretending like an outlier repeating itself is 100% going to happen is something a complete and utter moron would do, right after he invests in Lehman Brothers.

googleeph2 wrote:Socialism sounds good on some level. It's been tried.

Where has it worked, again?

Scandinavia.

I guess it depends on what your definition of is is.

My opinion - Scandinavia has many state sponsored social programs, but it is pretty far from co-operative management of the economy. We used to live in Norway, where entrepreneurship florishes despite a high tax rate. 'Course, when you extract 33% of the petroleum produced by the US with only 1.6% of the population, the cost for things like national health care and social security for every inhabitant become pocket change.

I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever. - CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team